The stack effect is a naturally occurring temperature driven ventilation system. It works on the fundamental principles of the buoyancy of hot air. As hot air rises, it creates negative pressure at its point of departure and draws in cool replacement air. The stack effect works when there is a temperature difference between the building interior and the outside. This mode of cooling is especially effective during summer nights when the outside air is significantly cooler than the air inside, thanks to a much faster cooling rate of the outside air.

It is to be used for the south facing apartments on the first and second floors, namely apartments 1.01-1.05 and 2.01 to 2.05.

The apartments facing the right-of-way can be cross-ventilated by opening windows, these are not facing Acland Street[3].

1. Mechanical heating and cooling would be required only for apartments 3.01 to 3.10 on the third floor, as the new third level would comprise lightweight materials that would not benefit from the thermal mass of the building. Mechanical fans could be installed in apartments in the first and second levels to assist with air circulation if necessary, but Mr McLeod thought this would be unnecessary.
2. Following the explanation from Mr McLeod with regard to the passive cooling system, the responsible authority accepted that the passive cooling system would not require a substantial refit of the building and a transformation of the proposal. The responsible authority did not prosecute this statement of ground.
3. The responsible authority opined that such systems would be incompatible with the requirements for acoustic attenuation. Passive ventilation relies on cross ventilation. This requires doors and/or windows to be opened so cooler air is drawn into the dwellings and then ejected through the cooling vents.
4. The review site is located within the St Kilda entertainment and tourism precinct. It is proximate to Luna Park and O'Donnell Gardens. The Vineyard restaurant, the Army and Navy Club, the Memorial Hall and Radio Mexico nightclub are nearby, and these venues have live music and operate late at night. Acland Street is a hub of street life until the early hours.
5. Mr Delaire confirmed that as this project is an 'agent of change' it should provide reasonable amenity standards within the dwellings without relying on nearby venues to moderate their noise levels. This can only be achieved with acoustic attenuation to the west and north facing apartments. Such attenuation will require all doors and windows to be closed, contrary to the operation of the passive ventilation. The responsible authority opined that this is fatal to the application as residents will have to choose between high levels of noise from external sources or an uncomfortable internal temperature.
6. I am not persuaded that the responsible authority's concerns are fatal to the proposal. In general terms, the planning policy context identifies this area as a robust place. The site is within a Business 1 zone and a major activity centre where intensive activities are encouraged, including entertainment and recreation through extended hours. The Tribunal has consistently held that residents in a Business 1 zone should not expect to enjoy a level of residential amenity similar to people living in a residential precinct.
7. Turning to the specific context, St Kilda is widely known to be an entertainment precinct for late night revellers. 'Quirky, grungy, a colourful place' and similar phrases were used by the parties in the hearing to describe its context. Policy explicitly encourages the distinctive ambience and character of St Kilda's tourism places to be retained[4]. People thinking of living in this building would have to expect they would be living in an activity centre that is noisy and active until the late hours. They are likely to choose to live here to enjoy this ambience and lifestyle. A person seeking a quiet 'suburban' residential ambience would be highly unlikely to choose to live in this place.
8. Policy does not support one activity above another. Clause 21.06-6 encourages both the continuation of the centre's role as an entertainment, tourist, and specialty retail precinct and modest intensification of housing. The nightclubs and the residents have to live together. Prevailing noise from established activities should not form the basis to prevent additional dwellings being located in such areas. On the other hand, new residents should not expect to unreasonably constrain the operations of the established venues. The policy approach is for possible disturbance to residential amenity arising from nightclubs and the like to be minimised, rather than entirely removed.
9. The tool to achieve a reasonable balance is SEPP N-2. This requires the venues to limit their noise emissions to enable acceptable amenity within the dwellings. Mr Delaire opined that if the existing venues are achieving SEPP N-2 at the existing dwellings near this site, it is likely that the SEPP N-2 levels can be achieved at this site with attenuation. He opined that with appropriate double glazing and seals of the windows and doors, and with the doors and windows closed, residents within the apartments would enjoy acceptable internal amenity. He recommended that acoustic measures are required for the dwellings facing Acland Street and dwellings 1.05, 2.05 and 3.05 facing Alfred Street.
10. The matter before me is whether the doors and windows should be permanently sealed, ensuring acceptable acoustic attenuation from night time noise, but negating the passive ventilation system, or whether households should have the option to open their doors and windows to cool their premises, but then possibly experiencing high noise levels.
11. I consider that the mix of experiencing the St Kilda vibrancy and internal amenity from passive ventilation is best left to individual households. In this particular location, I consider that ensuring all the doors and windows can provide satisfactory noise attenuation if closed is acceptable. They can also be opened to vent the hot air and cool off the dwelling. A typical summer day might comprise opening the doors/windows in the mornings when the locality is quiet. The doors and windows can be closed when residents leave for work or study, and the thermal qualities of the building should maintain a comfortable temperature through the afternoon and evening. Some residents may choose to open their windows at night to vent their rooms, accepting some noise, but then close the windows/doors when they retire to sleep, and rely on the passive ventilation as they sleep.
12. In my view, residents should have the option to manage their amenity as they see fit. Any prospective resident would in my view make a conscious decision to live in the building knowing the ambience of the area. If they prefer a quieter place, this development will not be for them. Residents would have to appreciate that they could not expect to retrofit their dwellings with mechanical air conditioners some time after occupation, with the outcome of the building's appearance diminished by such equipment being located on external walls. I consider this approach is consistent with the noise abatement strategy in the SPPF that provides that:

Development is not prejudiced and community amenity is not reduced by noise emissions, using a range of building design and land use separation techniques as appropriate to the land use functions and character of the area[5].

1. I note that the apartments would provide a high level of amenity in addition to the provision of natural ventilation and acoustic attenuation. The bedrooms are located to the rear of the dwellings, remote from Acland Street. Mr Delaire opined they would comply with sleep disturbance criteria. All bedrooms would be fitted with double blinds to minimise overlooking from the atrium landings. Furthermore all living areas would have access to natural light. All would have secluded open space integrated with the living areas. Their private open space would be augmented by a roof top garden and open space that would include a communal laundry, BBQ/entertainment area and vegetable garden. The roof garden would provide an attractive alternate area on a hot night. The entry/atrium would be secure and would contain the usual services for all apartments.
2. The amenity of the residents of the apartments would be augmented by their convenient proximity to the wide range of cafes, shops, services, public transport and recreation opportunities in the area.
3. On balance I think that the dwellings would provide acceptable amenity for residents, noting that prospective residents would need to appreciate that living in these dwellings is likely to be different to living in a dwelling located in a more pristine residential precinct.

1. Presently the building accommodates five retail premises and two floors used for offices. Eleven car parking spaces are provided on the ground floor, accessed from Alfred Street. The building presently provides only a small proportion of its required parking and most staff working in the building would be unlikely to drive to work due to the lack of, and cost of long stay public parking in the area.
2. The proposed development has a statutory requirement for 55 car parking spaces. This comprises 30 parking spaces for the residents of the dwellings, 6 visitor spaces for the dwellings and 19 spaces for the staff and customers of the retail premises.
3. The permit applicant submitted that I should support the full waiver of car parking for the following reasons:
   • The development is to be badged as a leading sustainable building and not providing car parking is an integral part of a sustainable lifestyle. The provision of car parking would diminish the identification of the development as a 'best practice' sustainable building.
   • Alternate travel options are readily available including bicycles and scooters, walking and extensive public transport services.
   • Accessibility will be enhanced by annual contributions by the developer of $500 to MYKI and $200 to a car share scheme.
   • The people likely to seek accommodation in the dwellings would be aware that no car parking is available, and be prepared to live without having a car available for everyday use.
   • The retention of the existing car parking at the ground floor would largely remove the provision of the proposed scooter and bicycle parking. It would also require the unattractive entry to Alfred Street to be retained and prevent a more attractive and pedestrian friendly interface being provided to that street.
   • The permit applicant opined that provision of more car parking spaces than presently provided within the building would be difficult due to inundation and height restrictions.
4. The responsible authority opposed a full waiver of car parking. The responsible authority relied on its Sustainable Transport Policy, accepting that it encourages a reduction of parking, particularly for one bedroom dwellings, but nevertheless requires car parking to be provided for two bedroom dwellings and the shops. Council proposed that this development should provide 10 spaces for the retail shops, and 0.8 of a space for each of the two bedroom dwellings, a total of 25 car parking spaces. At a minimum, the responsible authority opined that the development should provide no less than the parking presently available on the land. It submitted that the use would be more intensive than the existing uses, but it would provide less car parking. The outcome would be more competition for on-street parking in an area where these parking resources are already intensively used.
5. Is a waiver supported by Clause 52.06? It now provides the car parking can be reduced 'including reduced to zero'. This clarifies any ambiguity that a complete waiver can be contemplated. It sets out the matters about which I must be satisfied before waiving car parking. The matters to be considered include planning policy support, impact on street parking, impacts on activity centres, urban design and pedestrian amenity, and evidence of a demand for dwellings without car parking.
6. I turn firstly to planning policy. At the level of legislation, a more sustainable approach to development and transport is generally encouraged in the following legislation:
   • The objectives of planning in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 that encourage sustainable use, pleasant places and orderly planning.
   • The Transport Integration Act 2010 that fosters transport modes that have the least impacts on the natural environment and reduces transport related greenhouses gases.
7. The planning scheme also provides general support for reduced provision of car parking. Relevant planning policies encourage a more compact city that reduces our dependence on, and use of cars for travel. This is to be achieved by concentrating activities that generate high numbers of trips into highly accessible locations that are well serviced by alternate travel modes, particularly public transport[6]. These can be made by walking, cycling and public transport, rather than needing to travel long distances that are best completed by cars[7]. Planning policies also seek to limit car use by restricting on-street car parking in highly congested areas that are accessible by other modes of travel[8]. It encourages housing to be efficient in travel modes, water and energy consumption[9] and encourages public places to be safe, encouraging less car travel in areas shared with many pedestrians[10].
8. The local planning policy framework has been recently amended and now clearly encourages use and development to be more sustainable. The vision for the municipality is to make sustainable decisions that will contribute to a reduction by 50 percent in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the impact of private car use on the liveability of the city[11]. Local policy notes that the municipality has a comprehensive range of transport options comprising walking paths, cycle paths and public transport that provide alternatives to car use[12].
9. Clause 21.03 includes the following objective:

To facilitate the use of sustainable transport modes in preference to private vehicle use[13].

1. The objective is to be achieved by ensuring new use and development supports the prioritisation of transport modes and private car use is the mode to be least supported.
2. The impact of vehicles on local areas is to be reduced by:

Allowing for a reduction in the required number of on-site parking spaces where the provision of sustainable transport facilities/initiatives can reduce the demand for parking through increased use of alternate modes of transport; walking, cycling and public transport.

1. Somewhat surprisingly, a further strategy in this clause would require all new use and development to be self sufficient with on site parking. I consider that this strategy is to be applied selectively to situations where there are limited alternatives to car use and additional demand for on-street parking would create congestion that would adversely affect the amenity of the locality. I think this policy direction has less relevance in this matter as those circumstances are not applicable.
2. Council's Sustainable Transport Policy and Parking Rates (2007) is a reference document in the scheme. The policy states that 'Council is seeking to achieve a reduced reliance on usage of private cars'. The policy notes that lower use enables fewer car parking spaces need to be provided at workplaces and dwellings. Alternate transport modes including walking, cycling and public transport should be provided, to provide alternatives to the lower provision of parking at homes and workplaces.
3. The Sustainable Transport Policy and Parking Rates (2007) proposes that waiver of part of the statutory provision of car parking could be supported if a development meets specified criteria. The criteria include being within walking distance to an activity centre and public transport, being within an area with very limited on-street parking and where no parking permits would be issued, and providing only small dwellings.
4. I am satisfied that there is sufficient policy basis to support a waiver when specified criteria are satisfied. These include being close to an activity centre, public transport and local shops and services, assessment of impact on public parking resources, evidence of demand for dwellings without car parking and the development comprising smaller households.
5. The review site clearly satisfies the first criteria of proximity to a higher order activity centre. It is on the edge of a major activity centre. Residents of this development would be within a five minute walk of a full line supermarket, many shops and cafes and business services. They would enjoy convenient access to St Kida beach and many recreation opportunities.
6. I now turn to the possible impact of the waiver on local parking resources.
7. The existing uses generate an estimated demand for 17 short-term on-street car parking spaces (assuming the present office staff who do not have onsite parking do not presently park in the local streets or public car parks). Visitors and customers to the proposed development would generate a demand for 18 short-term on-street car spaces. Hence, the effect on the short-term on-street/public car parking spaces would be negligible.
8. Some on-street parking is available and would be sufficient to accommodate the demand for short-term parking generated by this proposal. Surveys completed by Mr Kiriakidis' firm indicate that 162 vacancies at 1.00pm Friday and 99 vacancies at 8.00pm on Saturday were available. Whilst some of these spaces were not proximate to the site, I think in this busy precinct, many people would be satisfied to find a car parking space generally in the area, regardless of its proximity to their destination. I suggest that people's expectations of 'convenient and suitable parking' in this area at its busier times would be relatively flexible, and hence they would be more accepting of less convenient outcomes than they may in other locations.
9. Could residents expect to regularly park their cars in local streets and public parking areas? On-street and public parking in the area is very limited in both time and availability. Parking permits would not be provided, and hence would not be an option for residents. Parking your car every day on the streets and in public car parks in this area would be time consuming, costly and tedious. I do not think that residents will bring their cars with them and park in the local streets, as might occur in other locations where it may be relatively easy and convenient to park in local streets. In this area, this option is very limited.
10. I now consider whether the locality is well provided with alternate travel modes? People residing in this location can walk and cycle to many destinations, including central Melbourne, along scenic routes such as the Bay foreshore, Albert Park Lake and St Kilda Road. The area is also well serviced by public transport. Six bus routes are within 200 metres of the review site and provide connections to Sandringham, Mount Waverley, Chadstone, Southland, Elsternwick, Clifton Hill and Frankston. These services operate with a moderate frequency up to 20 minutes.
11. Trams operate outside the review site, as well as the light rail service to Melbourne CBD. Tram routes 3, 3a, 16, 79 and 96 provide connections to East Malvern, Melbourne University, Kew, North Richmond and East Brunswick. Services using St Kilda Road provide the opportunity to change to trams that connect to many areas of inner and middle Melbourne. The Balaclava train station is approximately 1.5 kilometres east of the review site.
12. I think that people living and working in this area would enjoy convenient access without a car. Destinations that require car use can be reached by taxi or by using a share car.
13. Turning to the matter of evidence of possible demand for dwellings without cars, Mr Kiriakidis examined the 2006 and 2011 ABS Census information for the municipality, the suburb of St Kilda and the statistical areas close to the review site. In the statistical area, approximately one third of one bedroom dwellings and one fifth of households in two bedroom dwellings did not own a car. These proportions are higher than for the municipality as a whole. He opined that this suggests that whilst most households living in one and two bedroom dwellings in St Kilda have a car, there is a sizeable minority of households presently living in this locality that have chosen not to have a car.
14. Importantly he opined that this sizeable minority is growing. In the municipalities of Port Phillip, Yarra, Stonnington and Melbourne, the number of households living in one and two bedroom dwellings that do not own a car increased from 16,654 to 22,325 between 2006 and 2011. I accept that a dwelling without a car parking space would not suit many households. However, I am satisfied that there is a sizeable and growing number of smaller households that choose to live in the inner suburbs without a car. I think that it is highly likely that the residents of this development will not have private cars.
15. With regard to other matters identified in clause 52.06, I am satisfied:
    • The waiver of car parking would not adversely impact the viability or future growth of the activity centre. Indeed it may be enhanced as it would make the centre more attractive for some households and visitors.
    • There would be no impacts on local traffic management, and congestion may be less as residents of this development would not have cars.
    • Pedestrian amenity and urban design outcomes adjacent to the building would be improved by the removal of the crossovers in Alfred Street and activation of that streetscape with shops and the entry to the residential apartments. More generally the amenity of the area would be enhanced by fewer cars circulating around the area.
    • The equity of the provision of spaces is not relevant.
16. In addition to the above matters I note that the development would:
    • Include a Green Travel Pan that enables residents to participate in a car share scheme.
    • Encourage the use of public transport by funding MYKI tickets and hence reduce usage and ownership of motor vehicles.
    • Provide extensive parking for bicycles and scooters.
    • Be located within a mixed use development and an employment precinct.
17. The permit applicant advised it proposed to provide car share spaces within the building, but the car share operators prefer the spaces to be in the street to enable use by people not living or working within the building. The permit applicant and the responsible authority would support the provision of car share spaces adjacent to the review site, and several car share parking spaces are located within close proximity to the review site. I consider that the proposal largely satisfies the requirements of clause 52.06.
18. I note that cause 52.06 contemplates the introduction of parking precinct plans or a schedule to that clause that can specify a rate different to the standard rate. This encourages an integrated and consistent approach to the management of traffic and parking, particularly in already congested areas. In this case there is no indication that the responsible authority is contemplating the introduction of varied parking rates or precinct parking plans, and hence this matter must be assessed on its particular merits.
19. I am guided by clause 10.04 that encourages me to consider all aspects of a proposed use or development and 'balance the competing elements in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development'. On balance, I conclude that a waiver for parking for the dwellings should be supported for this particular development in this particular location for the following reasons.
    • Firstly the review site is on the edge of a major activity centre and people living in this location would be well serviced with alternate travel modes, and enjoy highly convenient proximity to shops, cafes, recreation, education and employment opportunities.
    • Secondly, the proposal would not change the demand for short term parking in the area, hence the proposed development would not impose a greater demand on the on-street and public parking spaces in the area.
    • Thirdly I think it highly unlikely that residents would regularly park their cars on the local streets and in the public car parks because of their limited availability and high costs. That option would be too difficult and expensive.
    • Fourthly, I am persuaded by the demographic information that indicates that a small but significant and growing number of one and two person households are likely to prefer to live in this development because it would have many sustainability initiatives. Hence, I am satisfied that a development comprising 30 apartments would be likely to attract that many residents and traders who have chosen not to own a car, and who would expect to live in the area and be able to park their cars on the street.
    • Fifthly, the proposal includes initiatives to promote non-car travel and includes other sustainability initiatives.
20. Overall I consider that the waiver is likely to be 'low risk' and it would not result in unacceptable parking demands being placed on the on-street parking in this neighbourhood.
21. I am not persuaded that the waiver should extend to the commercial premises. The permit applicant opined that the businesses would be occupied by people who also live locally, removing the need for parking. However, this is unproven and probably very optimistic. I think it most likely that many of the businesses would be operated by people who live further away. They are also likely to need to travel to operate their business, seeing customers, suppliers, business advisers and government authorities. Mr Kiriakidis opined that typically one space is provided per shop, advice that is consistently provided by traffic experts.
22. I consider that this provision should be provided for each shop, and the spaces accessed from Alfred Street and/or the right-of-way on the eastern boundary. I consider that the failure to provide car parking could make the shops less attractive for tenants and hence make possible that some shops will remain vacant. I also consider that four to six car parking spaces can be readily accommodated within the ground floor envelope without jeopardising the layout.
23. The waiver of parking for the dwellings is an integral part of developing a sustainable building and it forms part of a package of sustainable initiatives. It is not simply a waiver to make a poor quality development workable and so award a 'free kick' to a developer and in so doing impose congestion and amenity problems on residents in local streets. I am satisfied that it is consistent with the general and broad directions of planning policy and it satisfies the tests set out in clause 52.06.
24. This decision acknowledges that planning policies support Melbourne becoming a more sustainable city. It should facilitate developments such as this, provided that the circumstances are appropriate. Waiving parking is a significant step and I must be cautious. I think this development satisfies all the necessary requirements. The waiver is an integral part of a comprehensive package of sustainable measures. It is in the right location. The waiver will have little adverse impact on public parking resources in the area. I would not have supported the waiver unless these matters were satisfied. Hence I do not consider that this proposal sets a precedent to waive parking in any circumstances.

1. The responsible authority opined that the development should contribute to the provision of urban art. Condition 10 of the Notice of Decision to Grant a permit requires the permit applicant to contribute 0.5 percent of the total building cost to urban art. This requirement is based in local policy[14] that encourages all new development that exceeds an estimated cost of development of $2 million to provide an Urban Art Contribution.
2. The permit applicant opined that the condition is unlawful as it bears no relationship to any properly constituted development contribution, and it greatly exceeds the contributions supported by the Tribunal. The permit applicant accepted that it would contribute to 'public art', but at a location and of a quality to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, to be the subject of reasonable negotiations in due course. The permit applicant opined that any contribution should reflect the considerably smaller scale of this development, which is between one quarter to one third of the number of dwellings compared to the proposals for which contributions of $50,000 were imposed by the Tribunal.
3. I concur with the permit applicant's submissions. The requirement to contribute funds to urban art constitutes a development contribution, and hence should be based on a Development Contribution Plan that is implemented through the appropriate overlay. I acknowledge that implementing a DCP is time consuming and resource intensive for Council, however, this is the mechanism provided in the VPPs.
4. The Tribunal has in similar cases found that local policy provides sufficient basis for a limited contribution of $50,000. For the purposes of consistency, and accepting the permit applicant's support for a reasonable contribution, I will order that the permit applicant make a contribution to public art to the value not exceeding $15,000 to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
5. With regard to other matters, I concur with the permit applicant that condition 1(e) should refer to a 6.4 metre length vehicle on the advice of Mr Kiriakidis, and the design including materials would comply with sustainability requirements and no further changes are required to plans.

1. It follows from the above reasons that it is my conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit be granted.
2. The permit will include conditions that have regard to the submissions and evidence of the parties, and the matters that arise from my reasons.

• to partially demolish/alter the existing three storey building, construct a fourth storey addition with associated roof terrace/garden and rooftop building services, alter the external appearance of the building, use the upper three levels for the purpose of dwellings, reduce the car parking requirements and waive the loading requirements

1. Before the development starts, two (2) complete sets of amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:
   • (a) The location of the lift doors at ground level consistent with the location of the lift doors at Levels 01 through 03;
   • (b) Alterations to the layout of the 'bike/residential storage' room to ensure that all bicycle parking spaces include the minimum dimensions of 0.7m wide x 1.7m long and are located within a 30m walking distance of either the entry/exit via the ROW or the entry/exit via the Albert Street (whichever is the closer);
   • (c) Increased articulation (in the form of surface etching/detailing, colours, etc, as appropriate) to the northwest boundary wall facing toward Carlisle Street;
   • (d) All rooftop plant/services, including but not limited to solar hot water panels, photovoltaic panels and vertical wind turbines, relocated to the main roof of the building and confined beneath a maximum height limit;
   • (e) Except with the approval of the responsible authority in writing, no more than two (2) sustainable energy plant and equipment such as wind turbine, a bank of photovoltaic panels and the like shall be located on the side elevations of the building;
   • (f) Turning circle diagrams demonstrating that a 6.4m long rigid vehicle can successfully reverse into the rear ROW and depart onto Albert Street in a forward direction with standard 240L rubbish bins stacked along the length of the boundary wall of the adjoining building at 7 Carlisle Street, St Kilda;
   • (g) Acoustic measures to address acoustic amenity of the dwellings facing Acland Street and dwellings 1.05, 2.05 and 3.05 facing Alfred Street generally in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report by Marshall Day dated 11 October 2012 and submitted to the Tribunal in Application for Review P1047/2012 unless a report has been provided by an acoustic engineer which concludes that alternative measures specified will provide an acceptable acoustic amenity;
   • (h) Identify the location and cowls required for the passive ventilation system to the dwellings on levels 1 and 2 facing Acland Street;
   • (i) Reduce the height of any wind turbines to 4 metres;
   • (j) The provision of one car parking space for each retail or commercial premises, accessed from Alfred Street or the right-of-way;
   • (k) Any additional amendments to the development in accordance with the requirements of Condition 9;
   • (l) Any additional amendments to the development in accordance with the requirements of Condition 10;
   • (m) A coloured schedule (2 copies) of the materials, finishes and all colours (including those associated with the Urban Art Contribution) to be used on the main external surfaces, including roofs, soffits, walls, windows, balcony screens, balustrades and doors;

all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. The development and/or use as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.

1. All external materials, finishes and colours as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.

1. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. During the construction of the buildings and works allowed by this permit, the laneway(s) adjacent to the subject land must be kept free of parked or standing vehicles or any other obstruction, including building materials, equipment etc. so as to maintain free vehicular passage to abutting benefiting properties at all times, unless with the written consent of the responsible authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition, bulk excavation and site preparation, two (2) complete sets of a Construction Management Plan (CMP) must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the CMP will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The CMP must include details of, but not limited to, the following:
   • (a) Hours of demolition and construction to accord with Local Laws;
   • (b) Management of Acland Street and Albert Street to ensure that they are kept free of parked or standing vehicles or any other obstruction, including building materials, equipment, etc. to maintain free vehicle passage to abutting benefitting properties at all times, unless with the written consent of the responsible authority;
   • (c) Methods to contain dust, dirt and mud within the site and the method and frequency of clean up procedures, including the management of on-site storage, waste construction bins and vehicle washing;
   • (d) Management of parking of construction machinery and workers vehicles to prevent adverse impact on nearby properties;
   • (e) Management of staging of heavy vehicles, site deliveries and unloading and lifting points with expected frequency, and traffic management in the vicinity, ensuring routes to and from the site minimise disruption to residential properties;
   • (f) Minimising disruption to pedestrian access along footpaths;
   • (g) Measures to minimise noise and other amenity impacts from mechanical equipment, including idling trucks, and demolition/construction activities, especially outside of daytime hours;
   • (h) The provision of adequate environmental awareness training for all on-site contractors and sub-contractors;
   • (i) A liaison officer for contact by the public and the responsible authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced;

all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development a contribution must be made for Urban Art for the development. The location of the art contribution and its quality must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The Urban Art Contribution must be completed prior to the occupation of the development.

1. A Green Transport Plan must be submitted to the responsible authority. When approved by the responsible authority the Green transport Plan will form part of this permit. The Green Transport Plan must be generally in accordance with the Green Transport Plan submitted to the Tribunal by the Permit Applicant in Application for review P1047/2012 but modified to refer to the fact that the Council will not approve resident parking permits for residents of the permitted development. Any amendment to the Green Transport Plan must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and approved in writing.

1. The project must implement and perform the initiatives listed in the endorsed Waste Management Plan.

1. Provision must be made for the storage and disposal of garbage to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. All garbage storage areas must be screened from public view.

1. Deliveries to and from the site for rubbish collection must accord with Council's Local Laws and only take place between:

1. Pollution and sediment laden runoff shall not be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or waterways.
2. The foyer entry to the building including the lift area and services rooms must be constructed at 3.70 metres to Australian Height Datum.
3. The substation must be constructed with finished floor levels no lower than 4.0 metres to Australian Height Datum.
4. All retail tenancies on the ground floor must be constructed with finished floor levels set at 3.36 metres to metres to Australian Height Datum.
5. The car parking, bicycle parking and resident store areas must be constructed with finished floor levels set at 3.60 metres to metres to Australian Height Datum and must be protected from flooding through the use of a raised wall/bunding to a minimum height of 3.7 metres to Australian Height Datum.
6. Flood resistant materials must be used for the construction of floor levels and walls below the applicable flood level.
7. All electrical and plumbing fittings must be to the standards of the relevant authority for areas subject to inundation, for all services contained within the ground floor and lower ground floor.
8. Prior to the commencement of works, a Flood Response Plan must be submitted to the responsible authority and Melbourne Water by an accredited risk management professional.
9. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by Melbourne Water, the Flood Response Plan must be binding to successors in title to provide for ongoing effective management of flood risks.
10. Prior to the commencement of works, the landowner/s must enter into a Section 173 Agreement, with Council and Melbourne Water that is attached to the title. All costs associated with the setting up of the agreement must be borne by the permit holder. The agreement must be registered on title and run with the land, and must provide, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and Melbourne Water for:
    • (a) identifying floor levels that are constructed below flood level;
    • (b) land owners being aware of potential flood impacts; and
    • (c) identify the use of the Flood Response Plan.

Section 173 Agreement re: projecting balconies

1. Prior to the commencement of the use/development permitted the applicant must enter into an agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 with the responsible authority. The agreement must be in a form to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, and the applicant must be responsible for the expense of the preparation and registration of the agreement, including the responsible authority's reasonable costs and expenses (including legal expenses) incidental to the preparation, registration and enforcement of the agreement. The agreement must contain covenants to be registered on the Title of the property so as to run with the land pursuant to Section 181 of the Section 173 Agreement of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and must provide for the following:
   • (a) Acknowledges Council as the owner of the land (air space);
   • (b) Indemnifies Council from any claim resulting from activity or use of the balconies;
   • (c) Ensures maintenance of the balconies by apartment owners;
   • (d) Prohibits the installation of air conditioning plant or equipment on the balconies.

The agreement will be registered on Title in accordance with Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

1. Before the use or occupation of the development starts, the area(s) set aside for the parking of bicycles and motorcycles/scooters and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
   • (a) Constructed;
   • (b) Properly formed to such levels that they may be used in accordance with the plans;
   • (c) Surfaced with an all weather surface or seal coat (as appropriate);
   • (d) Drained and maintained;
   • (e) Line marked to indicate each car space, bicycle space, loading bay and/or access lane;
   • (f) Clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lane and driveways;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Car parking for the shops and the motorcycle/scooter and bicycle parking and loading areas and access lanes must be kept available for those purposes at all times and must not be used for any other purpose such as storage.

1. All lighting of external areas must be suitably baffled so as not to cause nuisance or annoyance to nearby residential properties.

1. The rear public laneway must be kept clear and used solely for the loading and unloading of goods from vehicles.

1. No goods are permitted to be stored or left exposed outside the building so as to be visible from any public area.

1. All piping and ducting (excluding down pipes, guttering and rainwater heads) must be concealed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Prior to the occupation of the building(s) allowed by this permit, all new or extended walls on or facing the boundary of adjoining properties and/or the laneway must be cleaned and finished to a uniform standard. Unpainted or unrendered masonry walls must have all excess mortar removed from the joints and face, and all joints must be tooled or pointed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Painted or rendered or bagged walls must be finished to a uniform standard to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. The landscaped area shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained in a proper, tidy and healthy condition to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Should any tree or shrub be removed or destroyed, it must be replaced by a tree or shrub of similar size and/or variety.

1. No plant, equipment or domestic services (including any associated screening devices) or architectural features, other than those shown on the endorsed plan are permitted, except where they would not be visible from a street (other than a lane) or public park without the written consent of the responsible authority.

1. No equipment, services and architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plan must be erected above the roof level of the building or on balconies unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the responsible authority.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   • (a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
   • (b) The development is not completed within two years of the date of commencement of works.

The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

[1] I have considered all submissions presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[3] Response to issues raised in the delegates report 19 October 2012 - Jeremy Mcleod, Breathe Architecture